Is Using a DAW Always This Complicated?

[alphajerk]

im not trying to be harsh... there is nothing wrong with doing things the way he is doing them currently, and keep doing them that way. im sure most of us in our lifetimes can stay in the old paradigm and still do what we love to do.

BUT if you want to move to DAWs, you cant expect it to be analagous to consoles. its pretty similar to recording to tape and trying to do the same thing to digital.... doesnt sound quite right. have to change what you do for the medium.

[Cry Logic]

 

To each his own, I guess. I hate having to zoom in and out, and when I'm zoomed out full, my eyes aren't sharp enough to resolve any detail.

 

 

So don't zoom out that far.

 

Or buy a pair of glasses?

 

I have SONAR setup to zoom in and out with the

horizontal and vertical arrows on my PC keyboard...

 

Control up/down for vertical zoom

Control left/right for horizontal zoom.

 

I'm constantly zooming in and out as I work....

I don't even think about it...it just happens...

 

Too easy....

[UstadKhanAli]

Hey ... I mean no disrespect to Mike either. I'm sure he's a nice guy. But really: "I hate having to zoom in and out" ???? Blind Freddy could see that that is not an attitude conducive to success when using a computer to make music.

Hey, I like Mike...I didn't say I always agreed with him!!

[UstadKhanAli]

Well ... you may be right..... If you are ...isn't that even more evidence that it's Mikes attitude that is the inhibiting factor here and not the software?

 

 

Possibly. That's why I repeated blue2blue's comment about Mike "nurturing" the mental block. But he's a bright guy. If there's a way to figure out how to do whatever it is he wants, he'll find it. And if there's not, there's always analog!

[Cry Logic]

You know, the worst part about is is that people record a track, look at the waveform, see that the squiggles don't fill the whole block, and say "Why isn't my preamp hot enough?"

 

 

Well those people are idiots!

 

The good part is when you hear a peak or a glitch of some sort

and you can just zoom in on it and edit it out.

 

Much easier with the visual cues than without...

[UstadKhanAli]

Yes, I would not want to do away with the visual cues, especially if I need to edit. But a lot of times when we're listening back to something, we'll turn around and look away from the monitor.

 

I've never heard anyone think that if their squiggles don't fill the whole block, they think the preamps are hot enough...that'd be pretty funny! "Hey, I filled up the block...now why does all my music sound all jacked up like Skinny Puppy?"

[MikeRivers]

zooming in and out in a button on my CS... well two, one for in another for out.

CS??? Is that short for Control Surface? Another piece of hardware that I gotta buy? Or is it a button on the keyboard that I have to remember, or one on the screen that I have to find?

fanknputer: the workflow deficiency isnt in the software, its in the person... which is why he does need to change his thought [work method] if he wishes to REALLY use it.

This is exactly the approach of a programmer who has never worked in the real world that he's attempting to emulate in software. Mixing consoles have a 50 year history and they've changed very little during that time for one simple reason - THEY WORK the way they are.

 

I have stated before that I don't REALLY want to use software (at least in its present state) but at some times, I have no other choice. So I want software that doesn't require me to temporarily suspend what I've learned over the years to accommodate some programmer who didn't finish the job.

[MikeRivers]

I also like seeing the waveforms for editing.

Me, too. That's what a DAW is good for. Some of them bug me because they don't zoom or scroll the way I expect but that's a minor annoyance. However, I'm not talking about editing here, I'm talking about recording, which I don't see as a process that's integrated with editing.

But I also see Mike's point (well, sort of - I think I've been wandering around in the dark a little! ), and have been trying to figure out what he might like to do within the parameters that DAWs currently have.

The capability is all there. There really are different functions on a mixing console and not all of them require the same routing and the same user interface. The programmers go half way by allowing you to design each routing the way you want it, but that requires extra steps and it also requires an understanding of what you really want so you build it correctly. I want the simplicity of turning a knob to get what I want. I'm willing to go as far as "installing" a knob where I need it, but I don't want to do all the wiring.

And Craig's point about having windows that are more customized to the task at hand.

That's a useful capability, but the reason you have to do this is because there isn't enough space on the screen to display everything. I haven't seen a "tracking" screen yet, because all of the widgets aren't available for making a custom screen. If you get rid of the waveform screen, how do you assign an input to a track? Or even enable a track for recording? An early version of Ardour had a screen that looked exactly like a Mackie HDR24/96 recorder. I liked that. But then the program evolved into a full blown DAW and it looks like every other DAW now. I think they've forgotten about that original look-and-feel.

[MikeRivers]

Anyone who says "I hate having to zoom in and out" should probably not be using a computer.

Zooming has its place. There's no better way to locate a splice point in the middle of a word. But I shouldn't have to zoom in to a control in order to see it and then not be able to see related controls without either panning or zooming out (and then back in again).

[spikemullings]

I've never heard anyone think that if their squiggles don't fill the whole block, they think the preamps are hot enough...that'd be pretty funny! "Hey, I filled up the block...now why does all my music sound all jacked up like Skinny Puppy?"

Oh . . .

[slinks away to make some adjustments on computer]

[pipelineaudio]

Zooming has its place. There's no better way to locate a splice point in the middle of a word. But I shouldn't have to zoom in to a control in order to see it and then not be able to see related controls without either panning or zooming out (and then back in again).

 

 

That would be a weird ass daw where you would have to zoom in to controls

[UstadKhanAli]

That's a useful capability, but the reason you have to do this is because there isn't enough space on the screen to display everything. I haven't seen a "tracking" screen yet, because all of the widgets aren't available for making a custom screen. If you get rid of the waveform screen, how do you assign an input to a track? Or even enable a track for recording?

 

 

I don't need to see waveforms (certainly not in any detail) when I'm recording either. I suspect that many of us, myself included, thought you meant that as a general statement since I believe you did not qualify it by saying "...while recording...".

 

But to answer how to assign an input to a track or enable a track for recording, in Pro Tools and many other DAWs, you can do this from the Mix Window. That's how I do it.

 

In fact, if I click on the Record Button while holding down the Option Key on my Mac, ALL the tracks arm simultaneously. Convenient!! I can control the routing of all my inputs and outputs from the Mix Window. If I hold down the Option Key while changing one of them, I can change all of the routing simultaneously on the inputs and outputs if I so desire. It's quite simple and intuitive in Pro Tools, and I suspect most other DAWs.

[MikeRivers]

 

That would be a weird ass daw where you would have to zoom in to controls

Well, in Reaper, you have to open a window or a box or whateveryoucallit in order to set the level and panning for an auxiliary send. And you can't have a bunch of those open simultaneously. That isn't exactly zooming but it's an extra operation you need to do before you can see the "knobs" that you want to adjust.

 

The knobs in Sequoia's mixer are pretty small if you want to see the whole mixer. Maybe if you were raised on computer games, you get pretty good at making small adjustments with the mouse on a tiny control, but I just have problems with that. My eye isn't that good and my hand isn't that steady.

[MikeRivers]

 

I don't need to see waveforms (certainly not in any detail) when I'm recording either. I suspect that many of us, myself included, thought you meant that as a general statement since I believe you did not qualify it by saying "...while recording...". But to answer how to assign an input to a track or enable a track for recording, in Pro Tools and many other DAWs, you can do this from the Mix Window. That's how I do it.

I've only been talking about non-editing here. Recording, mixing, making a monitor mix while tracking . . . those sort of operations. Things that you need to do when there's an impatient guitar player ready to do his stuff and you're trying to make sure that he can hear what he needs to hear (including himself) and you can also hear what you need to hear (and they may not be the same).

 

Reaper has a track arming button on its mixer and a window to select the source for each track (which you gotta do). Tracktion (which does everythihng different) has a pile of source widgets and in order to enable recording on a track you drag the source you want over to the track you want to record.

[UstadKhanAli]

I've only been talking about non-editing here. Recording, mixing, making a monitor mix while tracking . . . those sort of operations. Things that you need to do when there's an impatient guitar player ready to do his stuff and you're trying to make sure that he can hear what he needs to hear (including himself) and you can also hear what you need to hear (and they may not be the same).

 

 

Ok.

 

 

Reaper has a track arming button on its mixer and a window to select the source for each track (which you gotta do). Tracktion (which does everythihng different) has a pile of source widgets and in order to enable recording on a track you drag the source you want over to the track you want to record.

 

 

Awright, now I'm definitely confused. If you know this, then why are you asking this?

 

If you get rid of the waveform screen, how do you assign an input to a track? Or even enable a track for recording?

 

[alphajerk]

in nuendo, you can assign I/O and track record enable/monitoring/etc right from the mixer.

[pipelineaudio]

Well, in Reaper, you have to open a window or a box or whateveryoucallit in order to set the level and panning for an auxiliary send. And you can't have a bunch of those open simultaneously. That isn't exactly zooming but it's an extra operation you need to do before you can see the "knobs" that you want to adjust.

 

 

Let me see what I can do. You can adjust levels from the routing matrix, but you cant see the levels at a glance....perhaps that could change

[chipmcdonald]

Reaper has a track arming button on its mixer

 

 

You've got to have that - just as you have it on analog recorders, right...?

 

 

and a window to select the source for each track (which you gotta do).

 

 

Yeah - but, you have to do that in the analog world as well...? Unless you just leave it set up one way - which you can do as well with a template... By myself I never have to select the source, I leave the default set to what I want it to be.

 

How is this more complicated than an analog setup?

[franknputer]

I'll race you ok? You hook some gear to an aux buss on a console or thru a patchbay and Ill do the same from my DAW we'll race to 8 auxes for you and 20 for me. I wont start till you're on aux 7, fair enough?

You're missing the point. With a console, I don't have to wire an aux inside the frame. It exists - I don't have to create it by adding jacks & a gain control to a channel strip. That's the counterintuitive part. And, if it's so easy to do it yourself (and I don't really have a problem doing it, I do it all the time too) then it's also relatively simple for the person coding the software to implement an automated setup of same.

Also: Your challenge only matters if you're also interfacing to external equipment, which is the point of what he was originally talking about. Think about it: I have a console & a headphone matrix to set up, and you have a DAW and a headphone matrix to set up. All I have to do is plug mine in - I don't have to create the Auxes.

[alphajerk]

except on a console, the auxes are limited to one structure. DAWs are far more complex with capabilities than any consoles wet dream.

and yeah, CS=control surface which you can lose the screen more and more the better you get with it and its integration.

OR for zooming as one example, you can easily assign whatever keys on a keyboard to zoom all around. many times the mouse scroll wheels can be used for it as well.

i still am just hearing a complaint of an old paradigm that doesnt exist anyone more with DAWs. it would be like me whining about consoles and how limited they are and why must things be so difficult and limited working with them over a DAW... why cant they do things like a DAW. i dont expect them to because they never will be able to do it.

[Cry Logic]

Ok. Awright, now I'm definitely confused. If you know this, then why are you asking this?

 

Is Mike Trolling here?

[MikeRivers]

Ok. If you get rid of the waveform screen, how do you assign an input to a track? Or even enable a track for recording?

In Tracktion, it's the only way. What are we talking about anyway? I'm just throwing out examples of different ways of doing the same thing that each programmer thinks is the right way (or the only way that occurs to him at the time).

[MikeRivers]

Let me see what I can do. You can adjust levels from the routing matrix, but you cant see the levels at a glance....perhaps that could change

Why not just add volume and pan controls for the aux sends to the mixer? (he says, not having any idea how difficult it is to program that)

[MikeRivers]

 

- just as you have it on analog recorders, right...?

Sure. I'm not complaining, I'm jumping with joy.

 

You're getting your complaints mixed up, or interpreting everything I say as a complaint. Of course you have to do similar tasks with hardware and software. So give me a mixer and a recorder and put everything that I need on each one, in a logical place. It's OK if there's a "remote control" for the recorder on the mixer, and I don't have a problem with selecting the source for a track from either the recorder or the mixer.

 

This whole discussion started because of frustration with adding auxiliary sends to hardware outputs. Why isn't it as simple as right-clicking on a mixer channel strip, selecting "Add New Aux Send, and having that bring up a dialog box. In that dialog box, I could tell it to route the bus either to a physical output and it would give me a list of available outputs, or route it to an internal process, which would give me a list of plug-ins I could use.

 

So in this case I'd add a new Aux Send, label it "Cue 1" and assign the bus to "Headphones 1-2." Then I could either simply copy and paste it to other tracks, or right-click on a track, and on the menu, now I'd find a new entry "Cue 1" and I would install it on the track. The difference between this and the way I have to do it now is that I don't have to think about the bus - it's there the first time I need it, it gives the option of naming it (but I don't have to do that, I can leave it with a default name of Aux 1 or something) and I can duplicate the controls on other tracks just by saying "I want Aux 1 here" and it knows what bus to route it to.

 

It's more complicated than an analog setup because in an analog setup, the controls are always there, they're always hard-wired to an associated bus, and I don't have to worry about getting rid of what takes up extra computer resources (because there's no computer).

[MikeRivers]

 

except on a console, the auxes are limited to one structure. DAWs are far more complex with capabilities than any consoles wet dream.

I guess I don't have those kind of wet dreams with my console. If I tried, I might be able to come up with some hypothetical situation, but it isn't anything I'd really want to do.

 

Well, OK, here's a real world situation. My console is 20 years old and back then people didn't really care about stereo headphone feeds in the studio, so all of the aux sends are mono. If I wanted to send someone a stereo headphone mix, I'd have to use up two of my six auxiliary sends and fake a pan pot with the relative adjustmet of two controls. That's a pain. However, today I could buy a console that has stereo auxilary sends. If I wanted to use them in mono, I'd just turn the pan pot to one extreme or the other - no big deal.

 

In a DAW, I could create a stereo aux send and have a pan pot and a level control. That is, I could, if the programmer thought of it. Reaper, for example, defaults to stereo sends - maybe that's ALL it does when you put a send on a track. Tracktion has mono sends, and I couldn't find a way to make them stereo. Maybe it's there. I dunno. But on a console, it would be plainly obvious.

i still am just hearing a complaint of an old paradigm that doesnt exist anyone more with DAWs. it would be like me whining about consoles and how limited they are and why must things be so difficult and limited working with them over a DAW... why cant they do things like a DAW. i dont expect them to because they never will be able to do it.

Well, we all have our different needs. I suspect that like with most software, you don't use 10 percent of what it's capable of, but you feel good knowing that there are things you've never thought of that you COULD do with it. I just don't have that hangup. I want to know what I can do and I'm happy to work withing reasonable limitations. If I knew I needed six stereo sends most of the time, I'd buy a console with six stereo sends. I'd probably have to build a bigger room before I needed a seventh one.

 

Let's not talk about me, let's talk about DAWs and consoles.